Hey Pro-Lifers: You’re Nuts. Get Help.

Carrie-May Siggins and I got a letter in the mail this week decrying prairie dog’s adamant* pro-choice stance. As is usually the case with these things, it seems written by a crackpot with galloping cognitive, behavioural and personality disorders who clearly needs therapy and copious anti-psychotics.

Here’s the letter part of the letter (you can see the krazy klippings part in the photo, below):

Dear Stephen,

I knew it would not take you long for to demonize [Conservative MP] Stephen Woodwirth [sic]. His motion to strike a committee to look at the SCIENTIFIC + MEDICAL evidence as to when human life begins, must really threaten you. Why? Don’t you want to know the truth based on scientific fact + proof?

As far as access to murder “non-human” male and female fetusus, is not 2,200 dead “non human” babies in Sask and over 100,000 dead per yr. in Canada not enough for you?

The layers of lies + secrecy + falsehoods are slowly but sure off, it is just a matter of time. And as i told you TRUTH will always come to the surface.

For LIFE,

[Name redacted]

Retired teacher of REL. and Ch. Ethics.

Okay then. That was certainly something. Here’s a photo of the whole, delightful package. My goodness. What effort and creativity.

How to respond? How about: “thanks for the insane letter, you sad, demented freak”? Is that a good start? Why are you so obsessed with embryo and fetus rights? At what point in your life did you decide this is the moral cause to make a stand on? You act like terminating an unwanted (or, presumably) dangerous pregnancy is some kind of immature, thoughtless and selfish act.  As you would know, Captain Wingnut, if you were not a freak, no one likes abortions. They’re generally a big deal to any women considering them — possibly even a bigger deal than they are to you. But being adults living in the 21st century, most of us recognize the need for the option to be safe and legal.

Because we’re reasonable. Your disturbing insistence on railing against them, on the other hand, is not making the world a better place.

Am I getting through? No? Okay weirdo, here’s the deal in plain talk: your offensively simplistic and ladyparts-obsessed characterization of this sensitive issue is loathsome. And the fact that you would, if you had the power, take away all women’s rights to make their own decisions** for their own bodies makes you a reprehensible creep — a warty, troll-like wretch filled with ugly, dimwitted ideas and fizzing with craziness.

And you were a teacher? I can only imaging how many students you traumatized in your career by passing on harebrained misinformation and a sense of shame about their bodies.***

In a nutshell, you are awful and there is no point  conversing with you. Go away and don’t come back until you stop being insane.

Now I’ll respond to your stupid comments anyway.

Woodworth’s bill motion wasn’t remotely about science, you dumbass. It was a sleazy, bureaucratic-minded and doomed move to undermine women’s right to choose (probably permitted because Stephen Harper is well aware that the more ignorant and fucked-up  Conservative supporters — see Saskatoon Dumbolt — gobble up this crap). And if you knew anything, you tragic dolt, you’d know it’s impossible to scientifically establish a meaningful  point at which a fetus is “human”, and the only reason to play this game, Mr. Fucko, is to give Team Bible Crazy a legal weapon to fight reproductive choice.

It’s not science, it’s politics. Nice try, it didn’t work, you lose. Reasonable grown-up people all agree that a pregnant woman’s rights supercede the potential life she’s incubating.

Also, embryos aren’t “babies” no matter how many times you say it, buttknob.

Now here’s the fun thing: From watching U.S. politics over the last few years, we’ve learned that given encouragement, the anti-abortion crowd will attack birth control, sex out of wedlock and whatever else their pathetic little Puritan brains latch onto (give ’em time and they’d probably go after women’s right to vote). I’m having a blast watching these medieval-minded creeps implode. So are lots of smart people. Ha ha ha! They suck! We win!

It’s also abundantly clear like the only ethical issues so-called “pro-lifers” care about are biological and reproductive, but they’re all terrible at it. To address Pastor chastity, again: You’re not encouraging sex ed, birth control, condom use, or even basic sexual manners, self-esteem and decency–all things that would lead to happier people and fewer unwanted pregnancies, you idiot. Further, while you could’ve heroically devoted your life to fighting poverty, famine (if you cared about humans after they’d popped out of the womb, which you obviously don’t), sickness, whatever, you didn’t. No, you and your ilk are just sex-spooked kooks obsessed with what vaginas** are doing.

You’re all cracked. Off your rockers. Mad as a dozen hatters. Bonkers. And we (the not-crazy) are well aware that you fight as hard as you do to avoid dealing with your own crazy issues.

I’m really sorry that you’re nuts — really, I am — but we’re in a tough spot. You refuse to get help and insist on parading your wacky ideas through the 21st century that the rest of us are trying to figure out how to live in, and it’s annoying at best and dangerous at worst.

I’m going to have to ask you to go away. Shoo!

And that’s the news from this week’s PD mailbag.

*It’s the root word in Adamantium, the indestructible metal in Wolverine’s skeleton!

** Including choosing to have a baby sometimes!

*** Obviously, the same was done to you once upon a time. I’m genuinely sorry you never got the help you needed. We need to break the cycle of ignorance, superstition and stupidity that creates injured people like you. But you still suck.

**** You’re probably obsessed with gay men’s bums, too — which said gay men find creepy as all fuck.

Author: Stephen Whitworth

Prairie Dog editor Stephen Whitworth will never, ever pass up a chance to make a Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo pun.

26 thoughts on “Hey Pro-Lifers: You’re Nuts. Get Help.”

  1. What’s the deal with the two stamps on the envelope? Was this interesting package over regulation weight?

  2. No idea. Seems regulation weight to me. It’s the “cwazy” that exceeds safety limits.

  3. Is it safe to say, Stephen, that you disagree with the key message of the letter? Have I read between the lines sufficiently?

    Also, any discussino about reproductive rights circa March, 2012 should really include mention of forced intra-vaginal ultrasound. I think that’s called the Clay-Scofield-is-a-gigantic-twit rebuttal.

    You made my day.

  4. Thanks for this, Dog. Women’s reproductive freedom is an issue I’ve been working on for more than 25 years and that pisses me off. Our full emancipation as women includes reproductive freedom and I’d thought we’d already settled this is Canada. Alas and alack, I was again wrong, apparently. Good on the Dog for taking a stand!

    I do have one quibble, however. Saying that “no one likes abortions” is just weird. Believe me, when faced with an unwanted pregnancy, many woman are totally ok with the abortion option.

  5. This isn’t the first time we’ve received insane anti-abortion mail. I wrote about a 2010 letter here. Also: I tweaked the paragraph containing the quibblesome line, Regina Mom. Hopefully it’s not weird now.

  6. It’s a free country, I think. Your reader has a right to speak freely. You do not have the right to attack her (viciously) as a person.

    Oh, I guess you do, if someone doesn’t agree with you. You must be a joy to work with – as long as people share your views.

    I sincerely hope you’re not looking at a career in journalism – you’ll have to learn to be a lot more objective, and staying on topic wouldn’t hurt.

  7. Well put, charlotte. This is why it’s no longer possible to have real debates about issues such as abortion and climate change.
    As to this issue being “settled” in Canada, surely history has taught us – or some of us – that nothing is ever settled; a freedom or an advance has to be defended. I understand that there’s a move afoot to reopen debate on the death penalty. Whoever said that the price of liberty was eternal vigilance wasn’t just some old dead white guy: he was right on the money.

  8. Hi Barb… What you see above is a freedom/advance being defended. In the strongest terms possible.

    Regina Mom… About the “no one likes abortions” bit…. I’m really glad to be sterile thanks to that big ol’ vasectomy I had recently. That said, I did not like that big ol’ vasectomy. Did not like it one bit. And if there was an alternative that was as awesomely final, I’d have taken it.

    I can’t in fact think of a medical procedure that I’ve undergone that I’ve actually liked. But I’m glad to have had each of them.

    So, while I’ll never have to undergo an abortion, I can safely say that I don’t wish one on anybody. But I do understand why some people find them worthwhile.

    Stephen: When you listed off things the anti-abortion crowd will also happily attack given enough time (birth control, sex out of wedlock, women’s right to vote), you forgot to mention masturbation. They really hate that one. See my earlier post of a RealCatholicTV.com video.

  9. Paul: What I saw was polemics, AKA ranting and ad hominem attacks which undermined the principle being defended. It was the triumph of temper and self-indulgence, both of which seem to have been more in evidence in PD since the last federal election.
    One other thing: many people for many years have posited the limits of science and have been proved wrong. Don’t
    underestimate science; it will always surprise you.

  10. Charlotte and Barb: Thank you for the comments. There hasn’t been enough criticism of the anti-abortion movement. It’s reprehensible, idiotic and deserves all the contempt it gets. I’m extremely comfortable with my views and tone.

    (As for climate change, it’s real, Barb. Reasonable people can and will debate policy. They will not debate the scientific consensus. That’s for scientists to debate. And they did, do and will.)

  11. The “science” of “is it human?” is irrelevant to the question of whether abortion should be legal, because I’m pretty sure that I, as a 30-year-old person, am indisputably human, yet the government cannot and should not be able to legally force anyone, including someone who’s deceased, to donate their blood, organs, or tissue to me. The “when does life begin?” question might affect how people feel personally about abortion, and that’s fine, but it should have no relevance to determining law. The idea that Woodwirth is going to use “science” to come up with some revelation about how people with uteri should give up their bodily autonomy is sickening.

    So I don’t think any amount of anger at what Woodwirth is doing is too great. The invoking of mental illness pisses me of, though, and I find it really alienating.

  12. Seriously.
    I think that WAS my Christian Ethics teacher. No joke.
    Sounds exactly like an argument I had with my teacher back in grade 10.
    And in that same class, all the “good” girls and boys sat quietly, not wanting to get involved, while I got served a week’s detention for my combativeness.
    I have my own daughter now, and I hope that she will be able to grow up and be able to speak her mind without being labeled a terrorist or a “fringe” freak, and be able to live in a country where her body is her business.

    Thanks for this post. Makes me appreciate Prairie Dog even more.

  13. “I hope that she will be able to grow up and be able to speak her mind without being labeled a terrorist or a “fringe” freak”

    Unless she disagrees with Stephen…..then she’ll be called all kinds of irrational things. (Quote: “You’re probably obsessed with gay men’s bums, too — which said gay men find creepy as all fuck.” Huh?)

    Stephen, do you remember that lawyer in the states who tried to present an argument that birth control should be covered under health plans? Then that radio guy freaked on her and called her a slut, among other things? That’s exactly what your rant reminded me of. A deeply personal attack that had little to do with the topic. You know, I was even afraid to check your response to my first post because I was afraid of what you’d say about me. Still am, but I believe in this woman’s right to free speech.

    Peace and tolerance for all.

  14. Hi Charlotte, thank you for the comment. My quarrel is with those actively working to roll back women’s reproductive rights. Are you actively working to roll back women’s reproductive rights? If not, then you are safe!

    But if SO, then a mighty “BOOOOO” at you!

    But seriously (SRSLY!), my white-hot rhetoric is proportionate to the political attack on women, sexual autonomy and modernity that’s working it’s way through the U.S. and darker, dumber corners of places like Saskatchewan right now. It’s intolerable, it’s far from peaceful and more people need to follow my lead and call it what it is.

    Some might be okay with such nonsense as state-mandated transvaginal assault. I’m not. Frankly I have no idea why U.S. women aren’t rioting.

    It’ll be an interesting presidential election, that’s for sure.

  15. While the reader certainly has the right to speak freely about the topic, I think once you are stuffing folded up pictures of fetuses into envelopes, you have exited the realm of standard PD feedback.

  16. I appreciate that the Dog’s editor got pissed off and ranted. That’s what blogs are for. If you want something else, wtf are you doing reading blogs in the first place?

    On the issue of MP Womb Bat and Motion 312 (it’s a Motion not a Bill), here’s a good link courtesy the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada

    http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/M-312.html

    (And I still don’t get the ‘no one likes abortion’ shtick, or why one feels they have to mention it. Who cares whether anyone likes it or not? It’s a simple medical procedure, apparently less pain-inducing than the big snip.)

Comments are closed.